2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Apr 18, 2017 19:33:52 GMT
Wasn't the former Chief Political Editor, until recently (Nick Robinson) a member of the young conservative on the Oxford Union? Because a former Political Editor said something in the Daily Mail that is the gospel of truth? Bullingdon boy Dimbleby. Andrew Neil, Kuenssberg, Pienaar, Hardman. who have I missed?
Who are the left wing equivalants? Blairite Andrew Marr? Is Blairite even left wing?
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 18, 2017 19:55:22 GMT
There are a lot of Celtic supporters around Scotland but they are not as widespread as Glasgow Rangers fans (Hibs and Hearts fans are affluent Edinburgh so will vote No).
Glasgow will ALWAYS vote Yes because of the men from the Gallowgate.
* Not to patronise anyone on here but the significance of the football clubs is that, unlike England, the main rivalries in Scottish football are determined by religion with Glasgow Rangers fans being predominantly Loyalist Protestants and Glasgow Celtic fans being predominately Republican Catholics.
Hibernians and Hearts of Midlothian fans are also divided by sectarian grounds but the affluence of Edinburgh meant it had little impact on the referendum outcome.
More Rangers supporters than Celtic though. Think you are overplaying the footie thing I'd have to strongly disagree about Rangers out numbering Celtic in Glasgow. Celtic have, of course, the Irish Catholic community AND the left wing which combined is a mighty obstacle to a returned no vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 20:05:27 GMT
While The Times have never reflected the views of its owner. You might struggle to convince the left of the Labour Party that the BBC are a left wing mouthpiece. Though to be fair you'd struggle to convince anyone who doesn't spout extreme conspiracy theories. The Times is mildly right-wing but it is beyond doubt that the BBC is fiercely left-wing. The difference is that the latter is meant to inform and educate NOT have a political standpoint which has led to it be discredited.
The hard-left of the Labour party would think everyone and everything right of the Morning Star is right-wing scum and I'm not sure of the point of your "conspiracy theory" statement.
The BBC is only 'discredited' among the extremists of both right and left. The Times is centre right, always has been, the BBC is, however, neither left or right although (and this is why the left/right fringes get it wrong) it is broadly liberal, mirroring the fact that we are a liberal democracy. So politicians like Cameron, May, Blair are going to get an easier time than Corbyn, Galloway or Farage whose commitment to liberal democracy is questionable (the latter's treasonous alliance with the Russian propaganda channel does not go unnoticed, as does Galloway doing the same). |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Apr 18, 2017 20:05:36 GMT
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Apr 18, 2017 20:06:03 GMT
More Rangers supporters than Celtic though. Think you are overplaying the footie thing I'd have to strongly disagree about Rangers out numbering Celtic in Glasgow. Celtic have, of course, the Irish Catholic community AND the left wing which combined is a mighty obstacle to a returned no vote. Why do you think there are more Celtic in Glasgow? With big Scottish roots in my family, it was always thought more Rangers. Just wondered why you thought otherwise? |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Apr 18, 2017 20:10:30 GMT
I'd have to strongly disagree about Rangers out numbering Celtic in Glasgow. Celtic have, of course, the Irish Catholic community AND the left wing which combined is a mighty obstacle to a returned no vote. Why do you think there are more Celtic in Glasgow? With big Scottish roots in my family, it was always thought more Rangers. Just wondered why you thought otherwise? www.talkceltic.net/forums/threads/is-there-more-celtic-or-rangers-fans-in-glasgow.94275/
Asked Google. Brought up above Celtic forum. Only read the first page but about half think more 'huns' (whoever they are?) and the other half think 50/50.
Even still, you are overplaying the togger aspect
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Apr 18, 2017 20:14:46 GMT
The Times is mildly right-wing but it is beyond doubt that the BBC is fiercely left-wing. The difference is that the latter is meant to inform and educate NOT have a political standpoint which has led to it be discredited.
The hard-left of the Labour party would think everyone and everything right of the Morning Star is right-wing scum and I'm not sure of the point of your "conspiracy theory" statement.
The BBC is only 'discredited' among the extremists of both right and left. The Times is centre right, always has been, the BBC is, however, neither left or right although (and this is why the left/right fringes get it wrong) it is broadly liberal, mirroring the fact that we are a liberal democracy. So politicians like Cameron, May, Blair are going to get an easier time than Corbyn, Galloway or Farage whose commitment to liberal democracy is questionable (the latter's treasonous alliance with the Russian propaganda channel does not go unnoticed, as does Galloway doing the same). I like this post, but Corbyn must be more of a closer aligned to liberal democracy than Cameron, May and Blair? |
|
5,059 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 18, 2017 20:23:25 GMT
The Times is mildly right-wing but it is beyond doubt that the BBC is fiercely left-wing. The difference is that the latter is meant to inform and educate NOT have a political standpoint which has led to it be discredited.
The hard-left of the Labour party would think everyone and everything right of the Morning Star is right-wing scum and I'm not sure of the point of your "conspiracy theory" statement.
The BBC is only 'discredited' among the extremists of both right and left. The Times is centre right, always has been, the BBC is, however, neither left or right although (and this is why the left/right fringes get it wrong) it is broadly liberal, mirroring the fact that we are a liberal democracy. So politicians like Cameron, May, Blair are going to get an easier time than Corbyn, Galloway or Farage whose commitment to liberal democracy is questionable (the latter's treasonous alliance with the Russian propaganda channel does not go unnoticed, as does Galloway doing the same). Interesting grounds have been mentioned here, however I wonder what liberal actually means? A bit of a misnomer, just like taking the centre ground. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 20:24:07 GMT
The BBC is only 'discredited' among the extremists of both right and left. The Times is centre right, always has been, the BBC is, however, neither left or right although (and this is why the left/right fringes get it wrong) it is broadly liberal, mirroring the fact that we are a liberal democracy. So politicians like Cameron, May, Blair are going to get an easier time than Corbyn, Galloway or Farage whose commitment to liberal democracy is questionable (the latter's treasonous alliance with the Russian propaganda channel does not go unnoticed, as does Galloway doing the same). I like this post, but Corbyn must be more of a closer aligned to liberal democracy than Cameron, May and Blair? Not if you recall his continued support for greater centralised state control, previous support for Trotskyist entrists, and his working for another non democratic state's propagandist channel, in this case for Iran, and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 20:31:08 GMT
The BBC is only 'discredited' among the extremists of both right and left. The Times is centre right, always has been, the BBC is, however, neither left or right although (and this is why the left/right fringes get it wrong) it is broadly liberal, mirroring the fact that we are a liberal democracy. So politicians like Cameron, May, Blair are going to get an easier time than Corbyn, Galloway or Farage whose commitment to liberal democracy is questionable (the latter's treasonous alliance with the Russian propaganda channel does not go unnoticed, as does Galloway doing the same). Interesting grounds have been mentioned here, however I wonder what liberal actually means? A bit of a misnomer, just like taking the centre ground. It's just Americans that mistake liberal for left isn't it? It would take pages to talk about the history of liberalism but it is entirely distinct from varying hues of socialism, with its focus on the state and from conservatism, with its focus on shoring up the past. The root, as per Locke, Mill et al is from liber, the Latin for free; freedom from an overweening state, freedom to break from the past etc. |
|
5,059 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 18, 2017 21:15:35 GMT
Interesting grounds have been mentioned here, however I wonder what liberal actually means? A bit of a misnomer, just like taking the centre ground. It's just Americans that mistake liberal for left isn't it? It would take pages to talk about the history of liberalism but it is entirely distinct from varying hues of socialism, with its focus on the state and from conservatism, with its focus on shoring up the past. The root, as per Locke, Mill et al is from liber, the Latin for free; freedom from an overweening state, freedom to break from the past etc. It is an interesting one, I have always seen liberalism as a amalgamation of the Conservative economic polices and Labour social policies, I know it isn't as black and white as that. Essentially what I describe is what new Labour who morphed the SDP. |
|
700 posts
|
Post by cheesy116 on Apr 18, 2017 21:58:32 GMT
I'd have to strongly disagree about Rangers out numbering Celtic in Glasgow. Celtic have, of course, the Irish Catholic community AND the left wing which combined is a mighty obstacle to a returned no vote. Why do you think there are more Celtic in Glasgow? With big Scottish roots in my family, it was always thought more Rangers. Just wondered why you thought otherwise? I support Rangers and I am well clued up about the whole rangers/celtic situation and even I would say Celtic have more supporters than Rangers. Something as trivial as Celtic and Rangers wont change the outcome of the election or influence the votes too much, especially when it comes to a general election. A referendum on the other hand... |
|
700 posts
|
Post by cheesy116 on Apr 18, 2017 22:01:57 GMT
Why do you think there are more Celtic in Glasgow? With big Scottish roots in my family, it was always thought more Rangers. Just wondered why you thought otherwise? www.talkceltic.net/forums/threads/is-there-more-celtic-or-rangers-fans-in-glasgow.94275/
Asked Google. Brought up above Celtic forum. Only read the first page but about half think more 'huns' (whoever they are?) and the other half think 50/50.
Even still, you are overplaying the togger aspect
A 'Hun' is an extremely derogatory word for a Rangers fan or more so a protestant so its a very touchy word to use and probably shouldn't be repeated lol I know its a term of endearment in England though |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 18, 2017 23:15:11 GMT
No - I don't think newspapers are particularly respected anymore. The old days of the newspaper of record have long gone. I agree that Newspapers are not held in the same esteem as previous generations (and we'll probably see many close within the next decade) however, The Times - for whatever it is worth in 2017 - is still amongst the most respected Newspapers in the World.
It is also more of a source of record than any other in the UK and, needless to say, social media.
It coasts along on its reputation from a bygone era among the general public but anyone who is aware of how Murdock operates his newspapers knows that The Times is no longer reliable. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 18, 2017 23:21:10 GMT
Well, you guys who are in the group that didn't get to the voting station last time..'young' people that is, put a little note in your diaries. That's not actually true. Turn-out in the Brexit ref was pretty uniform across age groups. Initial estimates that young people had a low turnout - the ones that grabbed the headlines - were wrong. Which is not to say that young people are not less likely to vote in a General Election - the initial estimates were based on GE voting patterns. |
|
5,059 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 18, 2017 23:48:23 GMT
I agree that Newspapers are not held in the same esteem as previous generations (and we'll probably see many close within the next decade) however, The Times - for whatever it is worth in 2017 - is still amongst the most respected Newspapers in the World.
It is also more of a source of record than any other in the UK and, needless to say, social media.
It coasts along on its reputation from a bygone era among the general public but anyone who is aware of how Murdock operates his newspapers knows that The Times is no longer reliable. I couldn't tell you who the chief theatre critic is now for the Times, once the most revered of all the critics. |
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 19, 2017 8:04:39 GMT
I'd have to strongly disagree about Rangers out numbering Celtic in Glasgow. Celtic have, of course, the Irish Catholic community AND the left wing which combined is a mighty obstacle to a returned no vote. Why do you think there are more Celtic in Glasgow? With big Scottish roots in my family, it was always thought more Rangers. Just wondered why you thought otherwise? The fact that Glasgow has the highest concentration of Irish Catholics (first, second and even third generations) who, almost to a man, support them. Also, most international newcomers to the city tend to support them because they are perceived to be a more welcoming crowd (things like the Thai Tims makes news beyond Glasgow) and are the "trendy" side to support.
Rangers are, of course, well represented in Glasgow but tend to, at present, be a "Father and Son" tradition. Their reputation for being right-wing and, sadly, bigoted, also means they don't attract many new fans from outside Rangers' families.
I come from a huge Celtic family btw (season ticket holders in the Jungle and then the Jock Stein) and have had a couple of distant cousins play for them to various degrees of success though nothing spectacular. Just to balance things out though, my ex-wife of 15 years came from a Ulster Presbyterian family with proud Orange men so I'm not bigoted! (isn't that a shame that in 2017 Old Firm fans still feel the need to say such things?)
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 19, 2017 8:06:15 GMT
Why do you think there are more Celtic in Glasgow? With big Scottish roots in my family, it was always thought more Rangers. Just wondered why you thought otherwise? www.talkceltic.net/forums/threads/is-there-more-celtic-or-rangers-fans-in-glasgow.94275/
Asked Google. Brought up above Celtic forum. Only read the first page but about half think more 'huns' (whoever they are?) and the other half think 50/50.
Even still, you are overplaying the togger aspect
"Huns" is a derogatory term used by Celtic fans for Rangers fans. |
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 19, 2017 8:09:40 GMT
Why do you think there are more Celtic in Glasgow? With big Scottish roots in my family, it was always thought more Rangers. Just wondered why you thought otherwise? I support Rangers and I am well clued up about the whole rangers/celtic situation and even I would say Celtic have more supporters than Rangers. Something as trivial as Celtic and Rangers wont change the outcome of the election or influence the votes too much, especially when it comes to a general election. A referendum on the other hand... Totally agree that the allegiances to either club would have no effect on the general election or any local one either. It is purely Referendums it is capable of changing. |
|
5,059 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 19, 2017 14:54:55 GMT
See Theresa has bottled doing TV debates, just like Cameron. With the bill just being past to have a general election by a landslide, I would have thought all the opposition parties would've voted no, unless Ms May agreed to do 3 television debates.
Nothing like living in a democracy!
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 19, 2017 16:36:48 GMT
Those debates are painful though aren't they? The detailed analysis of body language and frankly all that standing up.....I don't wonder she has decided not to bother. But media might put on pressure.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Apr 19, 2017 21:02:52 GMT
"Huns" is a derogatory term used by Celtic fans for Rangers fans. I know |
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 20, 2017 7:38:12 GMT
See Theresa has bottled doing TV debates, just like Cameron. With the bill just being past to have a general election by a landslide, I would have thought all the opposition parties would've voted no, unless Ms May agreed to do 3 television debates. Nothing like living in a democracy! TV debates aren't traditional in this country but a recently introduced idea - stolen from America - to "engage" the populate...
We're not voting in a Presidential campaign but a party system and TV debates allow the uninitiated to believe that it is the former and vote according to personality rather than policies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 8:02:45 GMT
I'm not massively bothered about the TV debates, I enjoyed the 2010 ones (my family still use "I agree with Nick" as a catchphrase), but the 2015 ones were so over-populated in pursuit of desperately trying to represent every single party that nobody really managed to get much of a word in. On every topic they had Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems, Green, UKIP, SNP and Plaid Cymru to get through and by the time Leanne Wood had started talking about climate change, everyone had already forgotten what David Cameron had said about it 10 minutes earlier half way down the line.
I do think it's a dangerous political decision for the PM to outright refuse to participate though, it would certainly make her seem weak (she's probably concerned that she can't fill a 90-minute slot with "Brexit means Brexit" and meaningless cliches like "take back control" and "will of the people") and the BBC and ITV have said they're considering ploughing on with debates anyway and just empty chairing her, which would be embarrassing for everyone.
I'm going to be voting for the Lib Dems in June. I voted Remain in June 2016 and am exhausted to the point of irreverence of watching Theresa May try and make our exit from the EU the most unaccountable and ham-fisted car crash of all time. I agree that the majority voted to leave - those saying it's only 37% or that not enough people voted need to remember that that's been the case in every election/referendum since the beginning of time - but I think that we need to slim the Conservative majority so that they don't have the support for pursuing a "hard" Brexit as it were.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 10:02:28 GMT
BBC and ITV have said they're considering ploughing on with debates anyway and just empty chairing her It could well end up reminiscent of the episode of Have I Got News for You where Roy Hattersley was replaced with a tub of lard, and I'm absolutely certain that if it happens there'll be suitably edited screenshots appearing on the Internet within an hour or two. |
|
